Power deals hang in the balance

Kevin Rudd has joined Tony Abbott in declaring he will not do deals to form government in the event of a hung parliament. But what value should we place on election promises not to do deals, asks Anne Twomey.

With public support for Labor and the Coalition running neck-and-neck in the lead up to the election, the nightmare scenario of another hung Parliament has begun to haunt the campaign.

Both Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd have made commitments about not entering into agreements with the Greens, minor parties or independents in a hung Parliament.

Abbott's commitment is broader – not to lead a minority government at all. Rudd's commitment is more nuanced. He has stated that he will not enter into a coalition, or negotiate agreements or deals with independents or minor parties in order to form a government.

Presumably, he would still be prepared to form a minority government without any formal deal with whoever holds the balance of power.

What does all this mean?

Would the Australian people be forced back to the polls in another election if neither side wins a majority in the House of Representatives at the election? The most likely answer is 'No'.

There is a general principle that the outcome of an election and the will of the people must be respected. Politicians can't simply reject election results and tell the voters to try again until they get it 'right'.

There is an obligation on all parties in a hung Parliament to give effect to the will of the voters and to make government and Parliament work. For this reason, there is a strong constitutional convention that a prime minister who doesn't achieve a majority of seats in the Lower House at an election cannot simply advise the Governor-General to hold a new election.

Instead, Parliament needs to be convened and an effort has to be made to form a government and make the Parliament work.

We saw an example of this in Tasmania in 1989. The Gray Liberal Government won 17 seats, Labor won 13 and the Green Independents won five.

Labor and the Greens formed an 'Accord' supporting a Labor minority government on the budget and issues of confidence. The incumbent premier, Robin Gray, wanted to advise the Governor to hold a new election.

He argued, among other things, that Labor had promised during the election campaign not to do a deal with the Greens and that to commission Labor would therefore be a fraud on the voters.

The Governor, rightly, ignored this political argument. The issue for the Governor was who was most likely to hold the support of the lower House. His role was not to judge political morality.

The Governor told Gray that if he advised an election, it was unlikely his advice would be accepted. When Parliament met, Gray's government was defeated on the floor of the House, which voted in favour of the formation of a Labor government.

Gray resigned and the Labor leader, Michael Field, was commissioned to form the new government.

Can a government be formed and function without any agreement or deal with those who hold the balance of power? Yes.

While some form of deal or arrangement has been common in recent decades, largely to bolster the claim of one side or the other to form a government, it is not constitutionally necessary.

A minority government can exist and serve a full term as long as it is capable of passing its budget and is not the subject of a vote of no confidence.

It is usually in the interests of whoever holds the balance of power to ensure that the Parliament runs for its full term.

In New South Wales, it was the independents holding the balance of power during the minority Greiner Government, who initiated fixed term Parliaments, to ensure that Parliament went its full term.

At the Commonwealth level, the independents also sought a guarantee from the Gillard Government that Parliament would run its full term. They made no effort to bring it down, even when promises were breached. To do so would be like turkeys voting for Christmas – once the government is defeated and an election called, cross-benchers lose their power (and perhaps also, their seats).

So there is a strong political interest for minor parties and independents to maintain the existence of a government in a hung Parliament.

Finally, what value should we place on election promises not to do deals? Very little – as the Tasmanian example shows.

In any case, such promises are unrealistic.

Even governments that have a majority in the House of Representatives end up doing deals and undertaking negotiations in the Senate with minor parties and independents to get legislation through. It is inconceivable that any party, if it formed government after September 7, would not end up negotiating on bills with minor parties and independents on a case-by-case basis.

Parliament and government is all about negotiation and compromise. That is one of the reasons we have two Houses and a federation, rather than allowing governments to do whatever they want.

It may be supremely frustrating for a government not to be all-powerful, but it is probably a good thing for the governed.

Anne Twomey is a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney. View her full profile here.

Comments (163)

Comments for this story are closed.

Another Aussie:

14 Aug 2013 3:54:58pm

There will be no deal under a government that I lead!

I have already factored in that Kevin Rudd tells lies. With a stroke of good fortune perhaps we could ignore the fact that this man and the former PM just days before they were each elected Labor leader denied an interest in being PM. Their form is poor. I'm only partially listening but I have recognised many people have, in fact, stopped listening.

TheNewBoilerMakerBill:

15 Aug 2013 6:24:45am

If the faceless men tell him to make a deal with the Greens then Rudd will do exactly as they tell him to do otherwise there will be a repeat of last time we elected a government: he will be replaced with a union "yes" man (or woman).

Tory Boy:

15 Aug 2013 8:11:33am

Yank, again I ask, how is life in Kevin Rudds One Nation party? How are you dealing with years of railing against the inhumane policies of the libs, only to be outflanked from the right by your own party? How come, so close to the election, with your dear leader now in place, are you still only able to talk about abbot?

dean:

Abbott and Rudd would be speaking 20000 words a day. The media wait for one word or phrase to catch them out. The yank and other rusted ons then lurch in and attempt to smear them.

Is it any wonder that the debates are boring, the discussions are all planned out and the spin doctors are so important in these situations.

The public is sick of the pettiness and want the real issues discussed. The last six years has seen the government spend its time complaining about the opposition. If the existing government was doing a good job, no one would care to listen to what an opposition leader had to say.

Let us pray that there is not another hung parliament otherwise the country will suffer another 3 years of disasters.

tonyM:

15 Aug 2013 2:42:20pm

Yank:How would you describe the Rudd moment when he inflicted physical pain on the little boy who was upstaging him? Just a repeat of his work tantrums? What should it be called? Child abuse maybe? Or should he simply do an anger management course?

Here is a descriptor and I quote:"A GIANT ego. A narcissist. A micro-manager. An impulsive control freak. A haphazard and secretive decision maker.

This is not what Kevin Rudd's political enemies think of him. It's what many of his colleagues do."

Are you equally concerned with this failed psychopath? Go look at Beattie's description of him.

Typical Rudd-a-dud-dud is being too cute for even commenting on Abbott's remark.

TrevorN:

15 Aug 2013 4:40:34am

Both Abbott and Rudd have said that they won't do deals with independents but the simple fact is that if neiter of the two major parties can win a majority in their own right it will be becasue the public have decided it. If we once again have independents holding the balance of power then that is what the voters decided and when push comes to shove both leaders will beat a path to their doors if it means that a deal will give them the keys to the Lodge.

Don't give us that Rudd bad, Abbott good guff (or vice versa) because when it comes to power both of them will do any deal they can to get it.

impy:

15 Aug 2013 7:48:21am

yes but abbott has publicly stated the greens are going last which will help Labor in a number of seats, whereas rudd has backed away from his pre election promise to ban the greens by abdicating the responsibility to secretary of the labor party ie the unions! and what happened to rudds statement about lifting the standards " a new way of positive politics no negativity" doesn't really match the latest labor add which are 100% negative. rudds the real hollow man of Australian politics

JohnP:

15 Aug 2013 11:23:13am

TrevorN

I understand what you are saying, however the figures don't suggest that is what the people want.

Even if there is an hung parliament, the fact of the matter remains that more than 80% of the voting public voted for a party to whom they wanted to Govern as a majority, NONE of them want a hung parliament.

The vast majority of the voting public want a majority parliament. Abbott has recognised this and has moved to do his best to make sure that happens, whether it be ALP or Coalition.

The minor parties and independent s when they get the opportunity do their best to bastardise our democracy as evidenced in the last parliament.

Does anyone think Windsor and Oakeshotte represented their electorates real views when doing the deal with Gillard?

ScottBE:

So no difference there with Mr Abbott! Both will do and say whatever it takes to get power. As Mr Abbott clearly showed in 2010, he will stop at nothing!

However it does no good to stop listening. I recommend watching and listening carefully - critically. On my score sheet Mr Rudd may tell lies, but Mr Abbott is a pathological liar who sometimes isn't able to discern truth from fiction - he lacks moral judgement and has no sense of ethics. This places Mr Rudd some small distance ahead of Mr Abbott - but only a small distance. I hope we do have a Hung Parliament because it will help keep these bastards straight.

Mev:

14 Aug 2013 4:00:06pm

Greens have done enormous damage to the credibility of the Labor party. However, that was due to the Gillard's poor judgement and desperation to for the government. There was no need to for any alliance with the Greens. So Labor would be wise to distance themselves from the Greens as much as possible.

Abbot is in somewhat different situation. The current Greens are far more ideological than environmental. They have placed themselves solidly to the far left of the political spectrum. As such they would never consider alliance with a conservative party. Therefore, Abbott's declaration of distancing Liberals from the Greens is intended more as a reminder of the former Labor/Greem alliance than any relevance to the coalition political position.

Rusty:

14 Aug 2013 9:25:30pm

Mev,

" The current Greens are far more ideological than environmental. " - you are so correct with this comment.

I totally supported and deeply respected their (including Bob Brown) actions on protecting the pristine Gordon-Franklin rivers years ago but they seem to have lost all interest in clean air, water and soil.

They are instead trying to broaden their political appeal to having views on everything and as such dilute where their real strength used to lie and where they once received substantial bipartisan support from individuals of both Left and Right.

Individuals like Brandt and Rhiannon are so far left that the term Watermelons has been used to describe them and others "Green on the outside and red on the inside". Their policies have little to do with the environment and seem more to do with divisiveness and create conflict between worker and employer. This is fertile ground for contrived socialist propaganda.

Instead they have put all their eggs in supporting useless and ineffective policies such as the Carbon Tax which has lost them many supporters.

Anyway, Brandt is gone come the next election and he will be placed in history's dustbin of latte sipping, city dwelling trendy failed lefties.

J:

Tony Abbott is just several weeks from doing a Campbell Newman to the whole of Australia - Thousands of public servants to lose their jobs thanks to a not-so-independent Commission of Audit.

Rudd is trying to stop that from happening.

If he feels compelled to resort to Abbott-like tactics (being cruel to refugees) that is bad, but what is the choice if a substantial part of the Australian population sincerely now believes we face an invasion of refugees (despite their being no evidence, contrary to Turkey or African countries that have serious refugee problems)?

John:

Rusty:

15 Aug 2013 8:39:39am

J,

"Thousands of public servants to lose their jobs" - please stop getting me all excited and exhilarated at the prospect! So many loafers having to find real work for once in their lives is a good thing - I worked/lived in Brisbane for many years and can attest to this.

But lets also employ more frontline )the doers) public servants like teachers, nurses, doctors, police, ambos etc from the savings made from firing the thousands of administrative and management chair warmers rife in the Qld (and Federal) PS...

Newman is so popular in Qld that the rump of the ALP up there will still be in opposition in 10 years time and maybe even longer.

In fact unemployment has fallen in Qld according to the latest ABS figures so he must be doing something well.

Remember he was given an economic basket case left by Beattie and Bligh.

"Queensland lost its AAA credit rating in 2009, but with debt expected to top $85 billion in the next few years, ratings agency Fitch is rumoured to be close to downgrading the state further to AA." - AFR 15 June 2012...so if Qld was so strong fiscally why was it downgraded in 2009

Then we have the Qld Treasury's OWN report BEFORE Newman came into office -

'The in-coming Treasury brief for the Newman government said the state?s financial path was in trouble.

The 843-page document, known as the ?blue book?, began with an ominous warning: ?Queensland?s fiscal position and outlook is unsustainable and restoration must be an urgent priority.?' - AFR 15 June 2012

Terri:

jusme:

14 Aug 2013 4:13:08pm

"nightmare scenario"? It's only a nightmare for the two major parties because they can't just steamroller through what they want. the only drama in this last minority government came from internal labor division and media/opposition beatups.

first abbott and now rudd refusing to abide by the peoples decision should their vote result in a hung parliament? neither of them are fit to lead the country then, we are their bosses, if they don't want the job we give them, step down now and put up candidates who will do their best for the country no matter what they're dealt.

their stance is sheer tyrannical arrogance. I hope more Australians vote for independants and minor parties now just to spite them both and give a warning to all in the future who ask for our trust.

ScottBE:

15 Aug 2013 11:05:55am

You're right Jusme... But these promises will only last as long as it takes to say them. Given the scenario of 2010 they will both change their tune and try as hard as they might to form a minority Govt.

A happy little debunker:

14 Aug 2013 4:14:00pm

Some 70% of Tasmanians hate the concept of 'minority government'.We have been in this state of decay for 3 of the last 5 governments.

The state is bankrupt and mendicant.The employable population is leaving for all points north.The Public service is the largest employer - statewide24 000 or some 8% of the employable population are employed in health care - but the waiting lists get longer and longer.People get paid some 10% less than comparables on the mainland.Cost of goods is some 10% more expensive than comparables on the mainland.Our 'clean green energy' attracts a RET and a Carbon TAX.

If nothing else, state labor will pay a heavy price for their 'minority'.

Federally this will be felt - with at least 2 of 4 seats moving to the LNP, but possibly much more!

Give us a break:

A happy little debunker:

No better than kevnis 'school kids supporting their families' said in a formal context and referring to pre-prepared notes, rather than an off the cuff - foot in mouth moment at a presser.

Whilst not a fact, as mine don't change as often as labors, with swings of 7% & 8% needed, even Anthony Green on this ABC acknowledges the unique experience that Tasmanians have had of minority government is likely to see big swings against the incumbents in Tasmania and the likely loss of at least 2 Tasmanian seats.

Zapmeister:

14 Aug 2013 8:35:26pm

Tasmania's dire economic state has virtually nothing to do with its minority governments. Its mostly about having a tiny population while still needing the minimum basic infrastructure (health, education etc). We don't get the economies of scale of the larger states, we get the opposite.

Tasmania has never been a prosperous state, even before the age of minority governments. That said, I don't like them either.

A happy little debunker:

From the late 19th century until the late 60's tasmania was a driving factor in the Australian economy.

Far more so than the then mendicant states like WA. We paid for more than our share during those bustling years.

We were flat through the 70's, but the real rot in the system started with the greens and their political populism.

Leading us to where we find ourselves today.

In the 90's I saw the minority power of Milne, first hand, as she denied Rundle the confidence of the house in announcing economic development. the real reason why she is no longer in state Parliament.The only real reason why Tassie is up a certain effluent creek!

tax the athiests:

Ruby and Bella:

15 Aug 2013 8:38:28am

"Some 70% of Tasmanians hate the concept of 'minority government'.We have been in this state of decay for 3 of the last 5 governments."

It would appear that minority government is the choice of the people in Tasmania three out of five times. How does that work if 70% hate the concept? Why do they keep going back for more sultanas? Do they just keep voting the same way because that is the way they always have? What a strange collective beast the electorate can be, hate something but keep going back to it?Kindest regards

tc21:

15 Aug 2013 10:08:14am

So with the Liberals, a huge amount of those public servant jobs will be gone to save money, the money saved will be stored up in a bank account, nothing will be spent of the infrastructure of the future, so how will Tasmania be better off under Liberal?

GJA:

15 Aug 2013 10:14:16am

So what industry exists in Tasmania other than tearing down the forests and tourism? Apples? Salmon? The employable population needs employment, so heading north seems wise. The state can't employ everyone, although they seem to be doing their best from your statistics. What proposals for industry do you have? Can Tasmania become Australia's Silicon Valley?

Mev:

14 Aug 2013 4:18:51pm

Cannot help but think; Why is it that the Australian politicians cannot work with a minority government? Most European countries have 'minority governments' and it does not seem to worry them at all. One 'excuse' I could think of would be that the Australian Greens are a considerable distance, on the political spectrum, from both major parties (even most independents), that it would be rather unwise for either major party to contemplate accepting any of the Australian Greens' policies. The Australian Greens are currently far more ideological than environmental party.

Whitey:

14 Aug 2013 8:49:25pm

I agree, we had two minority governments in Queensland that worked well, both with indipendants, one LNP, one Labor, but neither with Greens. I think that an agreement with the greens is a bit of a poisioned chalice, as they are the problematic alliances.

Whitey:

15 Aug 2013 7:03:37am

If the Greens are such a pragmatic, science based party, why are they represented by people like Lee Riannon, anti semetic, ex communist ( I suspect ex in name only), who thinks that a Australian owned Jewish chocolate shop is fair game because some family connections supply rations to the Isreal army. While the Greens support the crazoid extreme movements, they won't be taken seriously by mainstream voters. And even there environmental policies, which in the past have been why people voted for them. Now their policy includes a 100% renewable energy policy. If any government they were in partnership with actually implemented this, living standards, which would have to include things like infant mortality, would decline by about 100 years of growth. Of course they realize that they would never have to implement that policy, so the problems it entails don't worry them. It's dilletente behavior , so why should the mainstream, who actually want to vote for a party of government, take them seriously.

azalon:

15 Aug 2013 11:15:40am

Okay.. have you got anything to back up your accusations are are you fully intent on making my point?

Lee Rhiannon took a stand with the ALP Councillors (who actually affected the boycott) as a protest against the violation of Palestinian human rights - doesn't make her anti semitic - makes her pro human rights.

And the change to renewables, if you bothered to read an actual policy document, like the Energy 2029 Plan, is phased in and ultimately costs much less than trying to maintain the largely obsolete and inefficient fossil fuel industry - and that's by conservative estimates ie excludes flow on health implications. It's all in there, read it.

or at least, can you or anyone please point me toward the evidence which supports your claim that living standards will decline if we transition to 100% renewables. I don't see SA standard of living declining now they're up to 20% renewables.

I would argue the reverse is true e.g. report by Steve Leone (25 August 2011). "U.N. Secretary-General: Renewables Can End Energy Poverty". Or the REN 21 world watch report renewables for poverty alleviation.

When you just stop and think about it, it stands to reason using virtually infinite, free energy is ultimately (and already in many instances) going to cost less than systems which require energy to make it. The only reason fossils are still used at the level they are is because election campaigns are funded by it. Check out disclosure reports at AEC website.

Adelaide Rose:

14 Aug 2013 11:13:31pm

Actually, I don't think the minority government was the problem at all over the past 3 years. It went to term and passed a huge volume of legislation, most of it with bipartisan support. The government was forced to negotiate on a lot of legislation, which meant we ended up with some pretty good outcomes, albeit with a few disappointments ( but no more disappointing than a lot of legislation passed by most previous majority governments).The problem in the last term of government was the ALP cannibalizing itself while the Abbott led Coalition was kept very busy trying hard to white ant the Parliament.

the yank:

This is an interesting question and I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other on what should happen in case of a hung parliament.

However I do think making a hard and firm commitment not to work within a minority government is arrogant so I have a problem with both leaders on this issue.

What I would rather have heard is something to the affect that as Leader I will determine, if a hung parliament is what the voters delivered, after the election what is in the best interest of the country and move accordingly.

While I did not like all the garbage that went on the truth is a lot of bills were passed and some good things happened.

din:

14 Aug 2013 4:30:10pm

i do like Rudd's reply

"Abbott's commitment is broader ? not to lead a minority government at all. Rudd's commitment is more nuanced. He has stated that he will not enter into a coalition, or negotiate agreements or deals with independents or minor parties in order to form a government. "

so if we get the same result as last time, Abbott wont bother trying to get the same people to support him this time around (as Wilkie and Bandt are there there), but Rudd will stay as PM since its not 'a coalition', and he will let others negotiate agreements.

Which is similar to the preference deals where he has said its not his call to make - he is only the leader of the labor party afterall, and preferences require some skill to organise, and best done behind closed doors.

As the article mentioned, when labor in Tassie decided it could form government, any pesky election promises it made were quickly dropped. Thats just politics

I expect the libs would have done the same, expect they didnt get a chance as the greens wont never support them.

the yank:

Notfooled:

15 Aug 2013 3:19:35pm

Much rather we put more Independents in, the Greens are real nut jobs right now. For example, they clearly state their aim to close down Australia's coal industry. OK, it's back to the Stone Age and mass unemployment is it then ? I'm Ok with a longer term, properly constructed plan to accomplish that eventually via a sane transition process but think we are definitely not ready for that yet and it would take a generation at least.

murr40:

14 Aug 2013 4:33:00pm

Kevin Rudd has made commitments about not entering into agreements with the Greens, minor parties or independents in a hung Parliament.Really, and you believe Rudd will honor this agreement, It is not in his DNA? Its ''Whatever it Takes" Rudd will Lie Steal & Cheat to become PM. Just look at what he has done to Gillard in the last 3ys?

To Quote P Keating ?The PM is more to be pitied than despised, the poor thing. The LABOR Party ought to put him down like a faithful dog because he is of no use to it and of no use to the nation.?

Andrew Rollason:

The key to this can be found here:"A minority government can exist and serve a full term as long as it is capable of passing its budget and is not the subject of a vote of no confidence."

If you read through the provisions of the Constitution, under sections 61-70, it is the Governor-General who appoints members to the Federal Executive Council who will then execute the duties of those offices. If a budget is never passed (ie supply can not be attained) it is then that another election would and should be called. Logically that would happen at least some time after May 14 2014.

greenspider:

14 Aug 2013 4:39:56pm

I don't see anywhere either in the Constitution or the Electoral Act that gives a political party any power to determine where my preferences should go.

Yes, they can print all the "how-to-vote-cards" they like telling the hapless punters where they SHOULD send their preferences, and they can have an agreement with the Electoral Commission about voting "above the line" in the Senate, and how do distribute votes, but really, don't try and pull the wool over the eyes of the public. It is the voter and the voter alone who decides where to send their preferences, please remember that.

The parties have only as much power as they can persuade gullible us to let them have.

MJLC:

"Even governments that have a majority in the House of Representatives end up doing deals and undertaking negotiations in the Senate with minor parties and independents to get legislation through"

Precisely. If this pathetic, air-headed clown is planning to apply his "strategy" in "the other place" then he should be required to explain to those gullible idiots voting for him that nothing of any substance that he's promising is going anywhere until July next year at the earliest, and in all likelihood not at any time after that either. If he isn't, then an explanation of what all this childish drivel regarding the HoR is about would be appreciated.

the yank:

John:

14 Aug 2013 8:50:57pm

the Yank, as you already know perfectly well, having been told by other posters several times, in that debate both leaders used prepared notes as that procedure was permitted under the rules of the debate.

In the recent debate, prepared material was not to be used. Your opinion of Mr Abbott should go up, because he obeyed the rules this time too, while Mr Rudd did not.

Hassa:

What a childish comment "he's lost my vote" because he took notes to a debate,have you ever attended a real debate? not the farce that was dished up by Fox.

If you want to blame someone blame the moderators or the rules committee,who allowed him to take the notes to the lectern.

So Haha you have always been honest with the taxation office and have not overclaimed allowances once in your life time or stolen fruit off a tree or ate something whilst walking in the supermarket? If you say no to any of these go and have another look in the mirror and you can BS to yourself again.

And be honest this time you were never going to vote for Rudd in the first place,no more am I, because my decision was made when Gillard was removed form the leadership,I stated to my workmate that an independant will get my vote not Rudd.

Whitey:

15 Aug 2013 7:08:28am

We don't really care if Rudd needed notes to debate. The fact that he arrogantly flouted the rules does tell us a bit about his character though, it fits in nicely with the character assessment given by his own front bench.

Tony:

Robert:

14 Aug 2013 4:54:52pm

I totally reject your characterization and even your logic. First of all, the Coalition and Labor are NOT running neck, and neck as you state. I guess that's a hope on your part but it's NOT the reality.Abbott's commitment is NOT any broader than Rudd's,they are the same but for Rudd's it's purely academic since he will NEVER again form a government under any circumstances...see the results on the 7th of September.

Treetop:

14 Aug 2013 6:56:20pm

The latest Morgan poll is showing 50/50 , this election is still too close to call as there is a huge amount of undecided voters in the key seats where the margins are less than 2% .Preaching to the converted like the voters living in Mr Abbott's electorate won't win this election .

anote:

14 Aug 2013 4:55:59pm

Gives an idea of how these 2 leaders feel about representative government and the House of Representatives.

"Presumably, he would still be prepared to form a minority government without any formal deal with whoever holds the balance of power." Indeed, and Abbott's criticism of such makes Abbott's position all the more contemptible.

Rudd does not have to enter a formal deal and a formal deal may not be worthwhile but to rule it out altogether beforehand is poor form. A deal does not have to be comprehensive but common ground should be made fair use of; it is an integral part of the job in representative democracy.

If Abbott is true to his word then Australian people could be "forced back to the polls" by Abbott adopting a bloody minded, persistent, and obstructive attitude. He has painted himself into that kind of a corner and his chauvinistic idea of strength depends on it. But yes, the GGs proper advise, depending on what it actually turned out to be, could give Abbott the feeble excuse to weasel out of his commitment while attempting to portray a false perception of maintaining his 'dignity'.

Abbott is also forgetting or neglecting that he is already part of a Coalition.

Me thinks it is all part of a despicable and silly attempt by both sides to scare the public into avoiding another hung parliament. On a personal level it deserves to back fire on them but we are likely to never know.

Don B.:

14 Aug 2013 5:04:55pm

It has been well documented what Tony Abbott would do to become prime minister, so this statement would have to be taken as just another lie to be foisted upon us, the fools who still vote, regardless of the fools we get to choose from.

Peter the Lawyer:

14 Aug 2013 6:48:37pm

I hate to have to tell you this, but in the law those who are the real experts have practising certificates and actually advise clients on the law. Professors in law schools are not regarded highly, because they don't actually ever advise clients r run litigation. Their ideas of making law are therefore not really based on any firm basis unless they are former practitioners.

GJA:

GJA:

15 Aug 2013 10:21:10am

The mechanisms required for voters to be well-informed are present in a free press and free compulsory public education. If you do not avail yourself of the first and insufficiently of the second, there's little hope you'll even understand your own best interests.

Colmery:

15 Aug 2013 2:18:53pm

Your assumptions about the effective agency of voters can be tested. Indeed those who focus on political systems do exactly that. My reading of that effort is that agency is very low and this means that elections will have a very high probability of being decided by the voters who are least informed.

Is our system really just about ideal? It would be worthwhile having the discussion that establishes that. The risk that it isn't warrants a substantial investment because the system dictates the behaviour of those who seek power and is thus the highest order effect we can have on the quality of governance.

Honest Johnny:

14 Aug 2013 5:14:54pm

Exactly. Politics is the art of the compromise. The fact that Abbott has already ruled out compromise is no big deal. Back in 2010 Abbott showed us that this political skill was lacking in him and despite winning more seats, he was unable to form government.

the yank:

GJA:

15 Aug 2013 10:24:05am

Politics isn't just about power. It is about advantage, so that the exercise of power falls in your favour. This does not preclude compromise. Compromise, like politics, is about getting things done, but getting them done to your best available advantage.

You seem to regard politics as a bludgeon for the imposition of someone else's will.

Alpo:

14 Aug 2013 5:20:36pm

Tony Abbott has put himself in a far worse position than Rudd. Rudd will go for a hung Parliament that worked perfectly well under Julia Gillard, but for the disgraceful behaviour of the Abbott-led Coalition and their Media Masters. But Abbott will backflip, don't worry about that. He will negotiate and the spin-masters will find an appropriate narrative to sell their malodorous product. The problem for Abbott, however, is that Labor will be in a far better position to negotiate a deal convenient to all, including and above all: The People.So, there you go. There is the true potential for a hung Parliament, although I must also say that with the endless string of the Real Tony's gaffes, plus their non-existent policy details, Labor are truly increasing their chances for a clear win.

Sack:

14 Aug 2013 7:30:55pm

Peter; Alpo is probably the most desparate Labor apologist on The Drum (sorry the yank and Helvi: you are pipped) and probably the most desparate on either side. Save your words for where they will be heard.

Alpo:

15 Aug 2013 7:55:49am

No John, it is you who is manipulating statistics, no me. When you have that level of uncertainty, the difference between those two percentages becomes not significant. Thus you just can't distinguish them from a null hypothesis of 50/50.... But hey, if your manipulation makes you happy, so be it!... We are pretty close to the real test now, anyway.

On the other hand, my alleged "paranoia" is fully compensated by your "delusion" (or is it "complicity"?).

John:

15 Aug 2013 8:46:48am

So, Alpo, let's just see what you are claiming ....

You take a 3% margin of error and add that to the ALP vote so as to establish a dead-heat. But I add the 3% to the Coalition vote so as to show a strong Coalition lead. And I am the one selectively manipulating the data to get a desired result?

And a poll result of 50.5% to 49.5% is a dead heat? Try telling that to an Olympic 100 metre runner. Or to Julia Gillard in 2010.

Alpo:

15 Aug 2013 11:30:49am

John, stop embarrassing yourself. Learn statistics first, and then argue, would you? When the difference between the two values (means, percentages, frequencies....) is within the margin of error you just can't reject the hypothesis that the values are in fact not different. Get some Stats 101 crush course, please, then come back and blog.Here you are not just showing delusion, but plain and simple ignorance.... What a surprise!

Finally, the result of the 2010 was a hung Parliament, which is exactly what the current polls are telling you, but you just don't want to listen.... What a surprise!

Ruby and Bella:

15 Aug 2013 9:19:13am

You are on the money Alpo, from the last full Morgan poll (not a quick phone poll) on August 12. Morgan allocates preferences based on what the respondents say not on the last election like the other pollsters but the publish both methodologies for comparisonFor the Poll Nerds! Calculation of 2PP vote is based on how preferences for minor parties are allocated:The Morgan Poll allocates preferences of minor party voters based on how electors surveyed say they will vote: ALP (50%) cf. L-NP (50%). When the Morgan Poll allocates preferences by how Australian electors gave their preferences at the last Federal election ? the method used by Newspoll, Fairfax Nielsen and Galaxy ? the Morgan Poll shows a clear lead for the L-NP (51.5%, up 1%) cf. ALP (48.5%, down 1%).

Alpo:

15 Aug 2013 11:56:32am

Hi R&B, I suspect the bookies are already thinking how to invest the millions naive fools will bet on a Coalition win.So far I don't see any reason to change my prediction of a hung Parliament. Abbott said that in that case he won't negotiate, but I don't believe him (I wonder why?). Most likely he will negotiate, offer heavens knows what this time around... but lose again.We are facing challenging times and we need a Government that is BOTH Effective and also Compassionate, the current incarnation of the Coalition is neither.

Notfooled:

15 Aug 2013 3:27:42pm

The Bookies have the ALP at $6 ( from $5.50 last week) now to win gov't R&B, like Alpo and others here in the ALP Cheer Squad, it's a big chance to really pump up the bank balance. You always seem so nice and polite, I thought you might like to know. I wish I shared the confidence, I could really use some more dough right now. Although my wife does not like me betting any more, I would definitely sneak one in. The Bookies are very rarely that wrong, the fix is in ??? Warmest rgds, NF.

Whitey:

15 Aug 2013 7:17:40am

Alpo, it would be a bad deal for democracy if Labor got returned. If a party can absolutely rule out an option, in this case the carbon tax, and then introduce it, and still not get punished by the electorate, then it will become common practice to do things in government that they have absolutely no mandate for, and in fact feel free to absolutely rule it out, knowing they will still do it. In the past, the fact that this type of duplicity is always punished at the ballot box makes our politicians more accountable.

Alpo:

15 Aug 2013 8:09:27am

Whitey, you are still desperately hanging your electoral hopes on that disgusting manipulation of the "lie"? Prove that Julia Gillard's interview, given next to no time from the election, "deceptively" changed the mind of 1 just 1 voter! The "lie" is an a posteriori invention of you desperate mob, to try to save the day and your own mental health upon receiving the electoral shock of your lifetime. Prepare for another one, btw.But wait, I've got more: You guys are still unearthing the old "lie" story now when there is mounting consensus on the need to implement climate change policies? Now that there is mounting consensus that the carbon tax didn't wipe out our economy? Now that we are moving to an ETS? Now that there is a mounting consensus that the Libs won't be able to get rid of the Labor's market-oriented climate change policies, because if they do so it will actually increase the costs of living? Enough of this buffoonery, just a few days to go and we can finally start a new life without Abbott and his gang.

John:

15 Aug 2013 12:24:51pm

Alpo, you know perfectly well that there are large numbers of ALP supporters who disagree with, or who are doubtful about, the claims of human induced global warming.

Gillard knew that, and quite deliberately made her "There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead" statement immediately before the election with the sole and only intention of winning over those doubters.

As she squeaked over the line and, with the help of the Independents, formed a Government, she was obviously correct in her judgement.

And as she abandoned that pledge immediately after securing their votes, she demonstrated the level of disdain with which she actually considered them.

Alpo:

15 Aug 2013 3:37:53pm

John, there is an overwhelming support for the reality of a contribution of human industrial activity to global warming: from both Labor AND Liberal supporters. I mean, the intelligent and well informed Liberals, of course. How can you otherwise explain the list of policies that the Liberals have in place to tackle climate change?... Are they loonies or are they lying?... Or perhaps they are just aware of the truth?Whichever of the three alternatives you choose will be interesting. Please do let me know.

Ruby and Bella:

15 Aug 2013 9:28:04am

Whitey, there are lots of people out there that heard Gillard say that there would be no carbon tax but there would be a carbon price. The people that argue over the semantics between price and tax were probably never going to vote Labor anyway but choose to perpetuate the confusion in order to convince others to believe what they do. Those that heard carbon price probably don?t require a security blanket in the form of having others believe what they do and so may in fact make decisions based on outcomes rather than politics or the my team versus you team approach. Headlines this morning ?$4bn gap in Abbott?s climate plan?

Ruby and Bella:

15 Aug 2013 1:30:37pm

As we said John people like you were probably never going to vote Labor regardless of who said what about price or tax. We are suggesting that Whiteys assertion that this issue will cause Labor to be punished at the ballot box is not valid. Surely our right to express an opinion is relevant to ourselves and others if not to you.

You failed address the last sentence, Headlines this morning, $4bn gap in Abbotts climate plan? Do you think that this is not relevant for people deciding about action on climate change?

John:

15 Aug 2013 1:55:45pm

Ladies, you jump to unwarranted conclusions.

Yes, I will almost certainly vote for my Coalition candidate on 7th September. But that is largely a vote representing my disillusionment at what has transpired since 2007. At the 2007 election I voted for the ALP. And I am pretty sure that the ALP will be punished at the ballot box because of people's belief that they have been betrayed by the dishonesty so prevalent over the last three years.

No, I didn't discuss the "$4bn gap" in Abbott's plan. That's because it is nothing more than a fanciful bit of politically motivated partisanship, dreamed up by the Climate Commission in an attempt to justify it's existence. It has the same level of credibility as the CSIRO's "State of the Climate 2012" report - none at all.

Oh, and simply as an aside - if Mr Abbott has got a $4bn hole in his figures, what do you make of the reports that show that Penny Wong has got a $170bn hole in her figures?

Mike C:

14 Aug 2013 5:21:14pm

As I recall, the most recent Tasmanian election resulted in a similar response by the Governor. The Premier advised the Governer that he did not hold a majority in the House of Assembly and that the Governor should commission someone else to form a government. The Governor told him that there was no-one else who commanded a majority, and therefore David Bartlett remained Premier, and that he should test his support on the floor of the House. The Greens votes with Labor so Bartlett remained Premier.

Thus, in the absence of an agreement of cross-benchers to support one party or the other after this election, the convention would appear to be that if there is another hung Parliament, the Governor General would simply tell the PM to convene Parliament and see how he fared.

Peter the Lawyer:

14 Aug 2013 8:18:12pm

Actually, the convention is that the GG calls upon the party leader with the most seats to see if he or she can form a government. If not the GG goes to the partry leader with the next number of seats. However, if the GG can be assured beforehand that a party leader will have the confidence of the House and can pass Supply, then the GG will apooint that leader as PM

paradise:

14 Aug 2013 5:24:33pm

The writer is a learned professional and knows that doing deals means written and publically revealed agreements, effectively a coalition. If either of the two major party blocs lead in seats over others, but fail to win a majority in the house, it would be natural business to negotiate, discuss, consult, have a cuppa and talk, in order to sound out likely failure or success of a bill. That's normal, but not common here. In the USA, where president and either one or both houses can be of different parties, the usual splits along well-known progressive/conservative lines allows for some room, sweetening, payoffs and resolutions. Eisenhower used to get the leaders of blocs, regions, parties and houses to a little talk over the whiskey and sandwiches, maybe a cigar. His legislative record is unknown to many, but is easily as good as, or comparable with, the records of Kennedy and Johnson, in most areas. Menzies and Calwell were respectful, friendly, sensible. Much of Menzies' record came from others in his camp or from opponents' suggestions and concessions. Politics today is low in estimation. Inexperienced and impatient practioners barge and tilt. This last "hung" parliament has an excellent record and is far ahead of most others since 1901 where a leader had the field open for romping and stomping, often on his (usually) own reputation. Any parliamentary result should be workable.

Alison Cann:

14 Aug 2013 5:30:57pm

Anne,To pose the question of "what value should we place on election promises not to do deals" by both Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd means that you don't believe either candidate in what they say.What value do you suggest should we place on the chocolate wheel?

Der Tag:

"It may be supremely frustrating for a government not to be all-powerful, but it is probably a good thing for the governed."

Call me a weasel, but I consider the Gillard government to have been one of Australia's most important - and the best - since WW2.

Using the "What's in it for me" measure that seems so popular with the Bogan vote -(Yes, the insult is deliberate)- my wife and I have been given the best care anyone in bad health could wish.

Our very healthy children and grandchildren have enjoyed an excellent education. They have been able to work in their chosen professions. Granted they started from the advantage of an Australian State education that is the best in the country, but they will continue to contribute to the national welfare even if the next government is a failure.

We are perhaps fortunate to live in a community whose local government has ensured an excellent retirement village with aged care hospital attached, but their careful administration of government grants keeps us fed , clothed and alive. Should we ask more?

True we have not afforded many overseas trips, as our friends have; but my disinclination to spend more than we could afford has allowed us a standard of living well in excess of our parents' lot in life. Why, if the wind blows right, the trees often part to afford us an ocean glimpse!

The frustration felt by two overly ambitious little men as they saw a country being governed by - heavens help us, women! - bodes ill for the nation's next three years. Neither man will govern well.

Tony:

14 Aug 2013 6:37:14pm

Just a pity that "the best government since WWII" has left us with record $300 billion plus debt, rapidly increasing unemployment, a deteriorating economy, 50,000 asylum seekers, over 1000 men, women and children drowned, record numbers of children in detention.......

Of course they have generated record amounts of legislation also known as 'red tape' while claiming they are determined to increase productivity.

Your performance indicators for 'best government' must be a wonder to behold.

Peter the Lawyer:

14 Aug 2013 8:20:59pm

SO you probably spent most of your life under Liberal Governments. You should be thankful they did so much for you. But why you should expect Governments to look after you is interesting. Governments should only help you to look after yourself.

maj:

14 Aug 2013 9:13:37pm

You are rightfully angered by the shockingly bad way in which those men of the ALP tore down a fantasic PM (Julia) right at the time when they realised she was actually better than they thought and that it was inevitable that, left unchecked, she would inevitably usurpe their power and out them for the buffoons they are.

Russ Hermann:

GP :

14 Aug 2013 5:37:10pm

Even if one party wins the lower house with the half vote in the senate and given current polling trends, no one party is likely to win the Senate outright. Can we get both parties to also commit not to negotiate with the Greens on any bill which they are trying to get through the senate. That will show true commitment. I would hope one of those media journalists following both leaders, ask them this question. Every day politicians appear on TV could we ask this question of them. at least this will be a decent question without the practicised sound bites.

Terry2:

14 Aug 2013 5:45:26pm

Tony Abbott has said that the experiment with minority government has been a comprehensive failure. But the reality is that the minority government has been quite successful in its legislative program albeit coping with the frustrations of negativity, obstructionism and parliamentary disruption hosted by one man !

Voter:

14 Aug 2013 5:54:01pm

The hubris of both men is astounding. Stating they will not negotiate nor lead minority governments is not providing people choice, as Abbott has tried to argue - it is denying it. These men simply don't want to deal with democracy.

gnome:

14 Aug 2013 8:41:40pm

Yes- we need a Labor/Liberal coalition to change the voting system for the Senate, to wipe out the Green Party. That's what about 90% of the voters would want.

The Green Party aren't interested in what the majority of the people want, and the significant parties pander to their tiny minority because they think it will give them a little advantage in the short-term.

Democracy would be best served by the real parties combining for a single purpose, but we can only hope. It won't happen.

Not the cane toad:

Frank:

14 Aug 2013 5:56:42pm

The only reason most of the fringe dwellers exist is because of the preferential voting system in the first place. This system should be done away with entirely, it effectively gives two votes to some and often it is the "Greens" that reap the benefits. If the voting public has learned anything from the last election, the Greens and Independants have been exposed for what they are, self interested black-mailers prepared to bleed the public purse on (in the main) idealogical nonsense. Our Political System is long overdue for overhaul, starting with halving the number of Politicians (across the board) with a flow on effect to the States and dumping the preferential voting system. Of course electorates known as "swinging seats are the real political winners in any electoral cycle and voters are becoming more savee about that.

Mo:

14 Aug 2013 11:56:55pm

Over two million Australians, or 18% of voters, voted for someone other than Labor or the Coalition in 2010. Yet only 4% of the seats in the House are held by those other than of Labor or the Coalition.

Preferential voting is not fair enough for true democracy. If 1% of the people in Australia vote for a party, then that party should have 1% of the seats in the House. Yes, it's complicated, often results in minority government, and results in much negotiation and compromise. But it is representative of the people.

As for Tony and Kevin, they have both lost my vote with their stance. A few independents in the House will really set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Notfooled:

15 Aug 2013 3:30:59pm

Agree Mo, since we lost the Democrats, not only can the Indies help keep the bastards honest but possibly even deliver for their electorates ! Imagine that !I reckon the electorates and voters in the seats of Messrs Oakeshott, Windsor, Katter and Wilkie have done OK lately ? And, who could forget Sen Harradine, lucky voters down there in his patch at the time !

Mo:

14 Aug 2013 11:56:56pm

Over two million Australians, or 18% of voters, voted for someone other than Labor or the Coalition in 2010. Yet only 4% of the seats in the House are held by those other than of Labor or the Coalition.

Preferential voting is not fair enough for true democracy. If 1% of the people in Australia vote for a party, then that party should have 1% of the seats in the House. Yes, it's complicated, often results in minority government, and results in much negotiation and compromise. But it is representative of the people.

As for Tony and Kevin, they have both lost my vote with their stance. A few independents in the House will really set the cat amongst the pigeons.

RDeBow:

peter allan:

14 Aug 2013 6:04:32pm

Why are journalists using the phrase 'nightmare scenario' to describe a potential minority government? It worked better in the recent parliament than a majority government usually does and is a fact of life in almost all other democracies. It is time Australians grew up and recognised that there is more to democracy than just a once every three year battle to see who won the most seats. The ABC is our best hope for electoral education so don't go tabloid on us.

Gadget:

14 Aug 2013 6:05:59pm

The Coalition by definition is a deal between the minor parties of the Liberals, The Nationals, The LNP of Queensland, the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory and the Country National Party of Western Australia.

Gilly:

14 Aug 2013 6:06:47pm

"The nightmare scenario of another hung Parliament".Going on the current parliament, it is only a nightmare scenario for politicians and the MSM. For government and democracy it is an outstanding win. The only people put out are those who don't believe in parliamentary representation for all the electorate.

russell s.:

14 Aug 2013 6:07:05pm

The most interesting thing is that Kevin Rudd says the question of preferences is a matter for party hq. Isn't he the same guy who instructed the NSW branch secretary to adopt reforms and demanded caucus make him president for life? So why hide behind the party on this issue. If Kevin had anything under his gut he would have insisted on no preferences for the greens, end of story. It wouldn't really matter because the Greens would still give their preferences to Labor.

JMJ:

14 Aug 2013 6:14:16pm

Anne, from what I can gather The Greens candidate, MP Adam Bandt, popularity is on the rise & may well take him over the line. From this perspective righting off The Greens may not be the wise thing to do.

R. Ambrose Raven:

14 Aug 2013 6:20:13pm

Minority government has allowed the 43rd Parliament to have some of the best policy discussion of any parliament in recent memory. As retiring independent MP Tony Windsor said at his farewell press conference: "The committee process has been the best in any parliament because the executive did not have control. ... My philosophy in working with both sides of the political spectrum has been that political competition delivers. Things happened under the Coalition because they could no longer take the New England for granted as being theirs, while Labor couldn't ignore it because it was one less seat for the Coalition if things got tight."

Given that neither dominant conservative party deserves power, it is Australia?s victory that neither were voted into office. Let?s keep it that way. Minority government may not be working for the Laberals, but it is working for Australia ? no doubt why so many Laberals are anxious to change such a novel and unwelcome situation.

Blaming the electorate for their politicians puts all the blame on electors who can see at best only what the media tells them, nor will have and cannot expect to obtain knowledge of any party's intentions.

Nor are voters free from moral failings. Johannes Bjelke-Petersen ? Jackboot Joh, the F?hrer of Queensland - was a highly popular figure among conservative voters and over the course of his 19 years as premier he trebled the number of people who voted for his party and doubled the party's percentage vote, reducing his Liberal coalition partners to a mere six seats in the 1983 election. That he and his party were institutionally corrupt suggests that the public taste is not always the best measure.

Sadman:

14 Aug 2013 6:55:40pm

If both leaders keep their word on this matter, they are destroying our democracy. Independents and minor parties have a place in our parliament and there is not valid reason for them not being a part of our government.

All this proposed action by both leaders will do, is to cement the two party system in place and disenfranchise thousands of voters.

maj:

14 Aug 2013 9:29:48pm

At this point, I have gleaned from the coments herein, that people, like Sadman, are under the impression that he/she will be forced to vote according to to the dictate of those evel men Rudd and Abbott.

Sad isnt it?

[Of course Sad could help change the system by joining the Electors Equality Movement (EEM)

Us:

14 Aug 2013 6:57:26pm

For goodness sake why should 10% (greens), if they are lucky, tell the rest of us an act of parliament passes only if they agree. Get real that is not democracy and most of us have had a gut full of the embarrassment of the last hung parliament. I never ever want the likes of Adam Bandt or Tony Windsor, etc., deciding the direction of our country. Wake up Australia and give them a message once and for all. They do not represent the views of the electorate. They are minorities and while they are entitled to a voice they are not entitled to a veto over common sense.

John:

15 Aug 2013 7:08:57am

Oh, come on, gnome.

In the last Gillard/Rudd Parliament over 85% of Bills were passed with the active co-operation of both sides. A further 8% were passed after there had been negotiations about amendments which were settled satisfactorily to both sides.

Us:

14 Aug 2013 6:57:42pm

For goodness sake why should 10% (greens), if they are lucky, tell the rest of us an act of parliament passes only if they agree. Get real that is not democracy and most of us have had a gut full of the embarrassment of the last hung parliament. I never ever want the likes of Adam Bandt or Tony Windsor, etc., deciding the direction of our country. Wake up Australia and give them a message once and for all. They do not represent the views of the electorate. They are minorities and while they are entitled to a voice they are not entitled to a veto over common sense.

molpol54:

14 Aug 2013 8:18:58pm

I think Mr Abbott is being just a tad hypocritical - 'the COALITION is the liberals and nationals working together - does he mean no minor parties or independents that are not in his pocket???!!! I totally agree with your last comment Anne and I think that if the governed vote for a minor party that vote needs to be respected - by both Rudd and Abbott - people voting independents and minor parties are trying to send a clear message to both the major parties and about time both parties got the message - there are a lot of governed people who are not impressed with either of these leaders!

ru4real:

14 Aug 2013 10:06:21pm

It's time for the bookies to do the odds on Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd refusing to be PM of a hung parliament, 'on principle'. We all know that neither of thiese men is strong on principles when it comes to holding the highest office.

Trek:

15 Aug 2013 12:55:01am

Australian Green Party initially played an important role in the Australian political environment. It was a genuine environmentalist party and should be credited with many important decisions regarding preservation of our environment.

That is until some other political fringe groups infiltrated the green movement for their own political platform. Bandt, Senator Rhiannon and some other have nothing to do with environmentalist movement. They are former communists who are using the popularity of the green movement to promote their socialist political platform. That is why both major parties should 'terminate' the attempts of socialists to infiltrate the Australian politics.

Tas:

15 Aug 2013 7:30:41am

The Greens have been a positive and constructive influence on the parliaments they have been involved in. They are rational and compassionate. Why do the churches support their stance on asylum seekers? Why are more Green voters university educated than any of the other parties?

Roland M:

15 Aug 2013 7:44:55am

It is enlightening to see how many people find their policy position is closer than they imagined to the Greens when they answer the Compass questionnaire.

I didn't see a lot of "extremism" in the Greens' impact on the government's actual policies and outcomes over the past three years. I do think people have a lot of ideological commitment to their own parties and to their antagonism towards the Greens.

One way minority government could work better, by the way, would be if both major parties were prepared to negotiate - with eachother and the crossbench - for good outcomes.

mick:

15 Aug 2013 8:20:42am

hung government takes the country down and marks time with fluffy outcomes. strong govt can make a difference and put actions, not plans into motion. Our country is distressed after the last 3 years in particular. We have been let down badly. New legislation should drawn that ensures that a clear decision/majority is required at least 5 seats. Simple change. No more grey we need black or white outcomes, or red or blue. Green in the mix has made the country sick and cost us a motza.

Buffalo Bill:

15 Aug 2013 12:46:29pm

Couldn't agree more. Good government is not simply about the number of Bills passed. You need to show strength in policy direction to instill confidence in investment and business. Having policies floundering in compromise and at the whim of one or two people is not what we need right now. The major parties are looking for mandates from the voters on many big issues - make a choice and let them get on with it. Another hung parliament is not going to do this country any good whatsoever.

Fran:

15 Aug 2013 8:39:43am

It's easier for both major parties to distance themselves from the Greens, since the Greens have lost credibility as champions for the environment, & therefore have lost much of their traditional supporter base. They are now filled with lobbyists for asylum seekers, anti-Israel activists, etc. & are being used as a vehicle for some vested interests that have little to do with Australia's best interests. The Green's agenda for protecting the environment, seems to now come a long way behind these other issues that their current members obsess over.

As for doing deals with Independents, that is a two-edged sword. Sometimes it can result in really good policies, but it also could potentially be disastrous, as evidenced by the situation in NSW, where a tiny minority of gun-lobbyists in the Shooters party, holds NSW government hostage with the balance of power, resulting in ludicrously dangerous & reckless policies that were extracted from O'Farrell, in exchange for the shooter's vote to sell off the public-owned power assets. (Breaking two pre-election promises in the process). If a federal government was similarly held hostage to a tiny minority of extremists, it could be a recipe for disaster.

Roland m:

15 Aug 2013 10:57:33am

Yes that's an issue (eg shooters etc) . But no government needs to do a deal with the balance of power holders that they don't want to do. Comes back to the stance the opposition party takes as much as it does the independent.

Baby:

ChrisW:

15 Aug 2013 9:06:12am

"It may be supremely frustrating for a government not to be all-powerful, but it is probably a good thing for the governed."

Think that's something of an overgeneralisation.While it's certainly possible to have too much of a good thing, a strong govt. surely is preferable at least for one term after a period of weak, indifferent or even chaotic govt.UK examples (sorry I'm an immigrant!) might be Thatcher following the Labour inspired mess in the late 1970s or Blair in the mid 1990s when the Conservative party had lost the plot after 18 years in office.I'm sure those more knowledgeable than I could quote for example Bob Hawke's strong govt.

Alpo:

15 Aug 2013 12:14:56pm

Hi ChrisW, but the experience of the Gillard minority Government (the true experience, not the fantasy you read in the mainstream media) is one of mainly great achievements, in spite of much brainless opposition from the Coalition. One advantage of having a government that does not fully control the legislative agenda is that extreme projects of law are finally moderated, and thus change becomes less traumatic. See the case of the role of the Democrats in keeping food out of the GST.

ScottBE:

15 Aug 2013 10:50:51am

I believe that the Gillard minority Govt did a fantastic job. And Labor made an alliance that promoted sensible Govt that was effective and productive. Negotiations and compromises meant a more balanced outcome.

Its a pity that the Liberal National coalition is that effective. There is a real dominance by the Libs and from Mr Morisson's comments last night the Nats don't count for anything. No democracy in that quarter it seems.

Both parties now say they won't do any deal to construct a coalition if there is another hung Parliament. This is patently absurd as the negotiations in 2010 clearly demonstrated. Mr Abbott would sell his arse... and presumably go on the street as a Rent-Boy too. Mr Rudd is just as ambitious and while he may be more reserved will happily go back on his word if a hung parliament offers him the opportunity.

Moscow's words and actions — including the alleged poisoning of a former spy — are not the results of random aggression but rather fall into distinct patterns that can help us anticipate Russia's next moves under Vladimir Putin.